Apple and Samsung Offer Closing Arguments – Patent Trial Goes to Jury

Apple and Samsung on Tuesday both offered their closing arguments in the current patent trial between the two tech firms. Apple closed by noting that Samsung had no devices that resembled today’s smartphones before the iPhone, and Samsung’s lawyers repeated their claims that Samsung doesn’t “owe Apple a nickle.”

9to5Mac notes that Samsung is sticking with their multi-pronged defense strategy of “our phones didn’t infringe the patents, and even if they did, that’s down to Google, and even if we are responsible, the patents are not worth nearly as much as Apple says they are.”

As mentioned above, Apple’s case consists of the charges that Samsung had nothing that resembled today’s smartphones before the introduction of the iPhone, and that their devices blatantly copy patented features of the iPhone as a shortcut to developing their own devices.

Apple lawyer Harold McElhinny, who kicked off its closing arguments, said the iPhone was a revolutionary product and it caught the industry off-guard.

“Where was Samsung before the iPhone? You know the answer to that one. They didn’t even have a smartphone,” said McElhinny.

Apple argued that the amount it is asking for Samsung’s patent infringement is fair, as it had tried to stop Samsung from copying the features in question, it would have been free to charge any amount it wanted if it licensed the patents to Samsung, and that if there isn’t a significant penalty, Samsung and companies like it will continue their copying ways.

One point of contention for jurors to figure out is a ruling in a separate case between Apple and Motorola, where the definition of the patent term “analyzer server” had been debated.

Apple’s patent for detecting and hyperlinking data such as dates and phone numbers in messages describes the use of an “analyzer server.” Samsung says its handsets rely on the phone’s own built-in software to detect such data, so the patent doesn’t apply.

The jury is now left to complete a multi-page form to determine which devices were infringing, and on which patents they infringed, and the amount of damages that should be awarded.

MacTrast Senior Editor, and self-described “magnificent bastard,” Chris Hauk owns Phoenix Rising Services and writes for everyone’s favorite “bad movie” website, Big Bad Drive-In. He lives somewhere in the deep Southern part of America. Yes, he has to pump in both sunshine and the Internet.